Maneesh Pipes PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the stage for invoking the arbitration clause had not yet arisen. This was because the respondents had neither disputed nor denied the petitioner's claim by passing any formal order. The Court considered the two circulars cited by the petitioner, dated October 10, 2018, and December 21, 2017, as significant. Pending the petitioner's representation before the respondents, the Court directed respondents No. 2 to 5 to decide on the petitioner's claim for the refund of GST at the earliest, preferably within 60 days of the certified copy of the order being presented. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies based on the decision of the respondents. The issue of the petitioner's entitlement to interest was not expressly decided.

Facts

The petitioner, Maneesh Pipes Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking release of GST tax paid along with interest. The petitioner was awarded a contract prior to July 1, 2017, for a water supply scheme. Upon the implementation of GST from July 1, 2017, the petitioner initially paid 18% GST, which was later reduced to 12%. The petitioner contended that they had repeatedly approached the respondent authorities for a refund of the tax paid, citing two government circulars dated October 10, 2018, and December 21, 2017, which purportedly supported their claim for refund of tax levied due to subsequent imposition of tax laws. However, the respondents had not responded to their claims.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST paid on a contract awarded prior to the introduction of GST, in light of the circulars issued by the Chhattisgarh Government? 2. Whether the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract bars the petitioner from approaching the High Court via a writ petition for the refund of GST? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to a refund of the GST paid, relying on circulars dated October 10, 2018, and December 21, 2017, issued by the Public Works Department and Town Administration and Development Department of the Government of Chhattisgarh, respectively. They further contended that despite repeated representations to the respondent authorities, their claim had not been addressed. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the contract contained an arbitration clause, and therefore, the petitioner should pursue their remedy through arbitration rather than filing a writ petition.